Eclectic Furniture Center

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 17, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 616 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Casual Furniture Mart, Inc., d/b/a Eclectic Furniture
Center and Local Union No. 814, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case 2-RC-16424
June 17, 1974
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
KENNEDY AND PENELLO
On March 13, 1974, the Regional Director for
Region 2 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding, in which
he found appropriate a requested unit of warehouse
employees at the Employer's New York City retail
furniture operations . Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board 's Rules and Regulations, Series 8 , as amended,
the Employer filed a timely request for review of the
Regional Director's Decision on the grounds that in
resolving the unit issues herein , he made findings of
fact which are clearly erroneous and departed from
officially reported precedent.
By telegraphic order dated April 15, 1974, the
Employer's request for review was granted and the
election stayed pending decision on review. Thereaft-
er, the Petitioner filed with the Board as its brief on
review the brief it had filed with the Regional
Director.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case " with respect to the issues under review,
including the Petitioner 's brief on review, and makes
the following findings:
The Employer contends that the requested unit
found appropriate by the Regional Director fails to
meet the standards for a separate warehouse unit
enunciated by the Board in A. Harris & Co., 116
NLRB 1628, and that the only appropriate unit
includes all employees at its retail operations. We
agree.
The Employer is a small family corporation which
is engaged in the retail furniture business and
maintains its showroom and office at 1 Park Avenue,
i The lease on the showroom at I Park Avenue expires in October 1974,
and the Employer testified that it is to the process of arranging to lease new
space in order to be able to combine the showroom and the warehouse
under one roof.
2 The warehouse is under the direction of a working foreman who was
included in Petitioner's unit in view of the parties' stipulation that he was
not a supervisor. There was also record evidence which indicates that the
working foreman lacks supervisory authority as it is defined in the Act.
3 See also Wickes Furniture, A Division of the Wickes Corporation, 201
New York City, and a warehouse around the corner
at 142 East 32d Street,! New; York City.' It employs
10 full-time employees and 1 part-time employee,
excluding its president, Joseph Arkus, and his wife,
both corporate officers who are on the premises
during the working day. Four employees are classi-
fied as office employees, three as sales employees,
three as warehousemen, and one as a part-time
warehouseman; the latter also serves as porter at the
office and showroom. All employees are under the
immediate supervision of Mr. Arkus.2 He testified
that the job functions of employees at the showroom,
office, and warehouse are coordinated and overlap
considerably as flexibility and interchange among
employees are essential for the viability and existence
of the small business operation involved. Thus,
merchandise delivered to the salesroom is unpacked
by either salesmen or warehousemen; office employ-
ees assist in the warehouse; and the warehousemen
perform many functions , in the showroom. All
employees receive substantially the same compensa-
tion, and have identical benefits. The same personnel
policies apply to all employees. There is no bargain-
ing history for the employees.
In view of the absence of separate supervision for
warehouse employees, the degree of functional
integration which exists, and the fact that the two
locations are separated geographically by less than a
block, we find, contrary to the Regional Director,
that the proposed unit does not meet the A. Harris &
Co. standards for a separate warehouse unit.3
Accordingly, we find that the only appropriate unit
herein includes all employees in the furniture
operations.
In view of the foregoing, and as the Petitioner
indicated a willingness to proceed to an election in
the overall unit, we conclude that the following unit
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time employees of
Employer employed in its retail furniture opera-
tion in New York, New York, excluding manage-
rial employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
Accordingly, we shall remand the case to the
Regional Director for the purpose of conducting an
election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
NLRB 615; Wickes Furniture, A Division of the Wickes Corporation, 201
NLRB 610 ; Levitz Furniture Company of Santa Clara Inc., 192 NLRB 61.
Dolnick's Furniture Co., Inc., 198 NLRB No. 105, cited by the Regional
Director , is factually distinguishable in that there a majority found that the
warehouse employees were separately supervised, and that they had
minimal contact with the other employees of the employer . Chairman
Miller, in any event, who dissented therein , finds no need to distinguish
between that and this case since he would not have found the separate unit
of warehouse employees sought in Dolnick 's to be appropriate.
211 NLRB No. 69
ECLECTIC FURNITURE CENTER 617
Election, as modified herein, except that the payroll
period for _determining eligibility shall be that
4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them. Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; N.L.R.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co, 394 U.S.
759. Accordingly,. it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
immediately preceding the issuance date of this
Decision on Review.4
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 2 within 7 days of
the date of this Decision on Review . The Regional Director shall make the
list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this
list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary
circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for
setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.
3